Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Many of you are very much against the upcoming conflict with Iraq. No matter what the opposition says, you come back with, "It's all about the oil." If someone keeps pressing the issue, many are quick to call him an idiot.

I find it ironic that so many here are completely unwilling to listen to opposing arguments, yet openly blast the "anti-druggers" because they refuse to hear our side of the story.

Don't get me wrong, there are many who oppose the war and back it up with strong cases, who are willing to at least listen to Bush's side.

But to those who refuse, what would it take to convince you that we must get rid of Saddam?

It's not that I don't believe Saddam is an evil man. I just don't think that's reason enough to go invade his country. One question I have for you Bushies is "What would Saddam have to do to get the U.S. off his back?"

--------------------

"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Post Extras:

Anonymous

Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: silversoul7] #1258815 - 01/29/03 01:38 PM (15 years, 23 days ago)

--------------------The best way to live
is to be like water
For water benefits all things
and goes against none of them
It provides for all people
and even cleanses those places
a man is loath to go
In this way it is just like Tao ~Daodejing

>No matter what the opposition says, you come back with, "It's all about the oil."

There are have been many other arguments against the Iraq war on this forum.

>But to those who refuse, what would it take to convince you that we must get rid >of Saddam?

You will have to convince us that: slaughtering civilians, bombing cities and schools, occupying a hostile country, funding war instead of the economy, stealing foreign oil, giving birth to new generations of terrorists, and thrusting the world into chaos, are these prices worth paying for American peace of mind?

If we are going after him because he has weapons of mass destruction, why not India or Pakistan? They both have nukes.

That is not the only reason. The justification is that Iraq has not fulfilled the terms of the surrender agreement it signed. Discontinuing its WMD development program and destroying its stocks of WMD were some of the conditions of the surrender agreement, but by no means all. There were also reparations, return of POWs, and several other conditions which have yet to be met. Someone (Lord Morham? I can't remember now) posted here a few months back a link to the complete terms of the surrender agreement from the UN website, and Bush a few months back enumerated a bunch of them in one of his televised speeches. In the case of India and Pakistan, the issue of surrender agreements doesn't apply.

For those who are actually interested in learning some facts rather than parroting hysterical denunciations, take a tour of the UN website and note the number of times the UN (NOT just the US) has chastised Iraq for failing to abide by its commitments.

It's analogous to a criminal brought before the courts who is leniently sentenced to probation rather than imprisonment. The courts say, "Here are the terms of your probation. If you follow them, you can walk the streets. If you don't, you are subject to imprisonment." The mugger says, "No problem, judge! I can do all these things -- anything to stay out of prison," then goes out and buys another gun the moment he is out of sight of the courthouse.

Hussein knew at the time he signed the surrender agreement that he had no intention of complying with its terms -- he signed the agreement merely as a ploy to keep the UN coalition forces from crossing his borders. He knew that the UN was a gutless organization which would take no substantive action if he immediately burned his copy of the surrender agreement and put it out of his mind. He probably figured they might impose sanctions, but what did sanctions matter to him? He still had enough to look after himself (and his fifty presidential palaces), to rebuild his army into a 600,000 man force, and to restart his weapons program.

The events of the last dozen years have shown Hussein's estimate of the UN's impotence to be dead on -- not only has the UN done nothing but impose sanctions and introduce condemnatory resolution after condemnatory resolution which he can ignore with impunity, but they even lessened the harshness of the original sanctions. It was an enormous error not to have finished the job by marching into Baghdad, seizing Hussein and hauling him in front of a war crimes court. If they had done what they should have done in the first place, this whole mess would have been over a dozen years ago.

The point is not even necessarily that Hussein may venture beyond his borders again (I personally am not convinced he will, but I may be wrong), but that by allowing him to violate flagrantly the terms of the surrender agreement it sets a dangerous precedent. Do you not think there may be other dictators itching to loot their neighbors who are now asking themselves, "Why not give it a shot? What's the worst that can happen? If I lose, I have to put up with those airheads in the UN yammering at me for a few years until they are persuaded to drop the sanctions because the masses I rule -- whom I hold in contempt anyway -- are having a hard time finding enough food. I can handle that."

Let me ask you if you think it correct that anytime someone wants to try to conquer another country, he need suffer no consequences? Because that is exactly what happened to Hussein. He gambled that no one would oppose his takeover of Kuwait. To his enormous surprise, he lost the gamble. He then gambled that he could fake the UN into letting him get off scott-free. He won that gamble. So far.

To those of you who profess to abhor war, I ask you: is this justice? That the INITIATOR of the war receives no punishment whatsoever? You can answer honestly. No one will think the less of you.

You will have to convince us that: slaughtering civilians, bombing cities and schools, occupying a hostile country, funding war instead of the economy, stealing foreign oil, giving birth to new generations of terrorists, and thrusting the world into chaos, are these prices worth paying for American peace of mind?

I personally believe that the best thing to do is hire an assassin or a team of assassins to take out Hussein (and maybe a few of his top lackeys) rather than mounting an invasion. Unfortunately, international law forbids this, claiming that assassination is "uncivilized". How they come to the conclusion that the assassination of a man who ordered the invasion of a peaceful neighboring country is less "civilized" than mounting a war that may result in thousands of deaths (including inevitably a large number of non-combatants) escapes me, but that's the way it is.

I am not convinced that invading Iraq is the correct thing to do at this time, not because the US (or any other signatory to the surrender agreement, for that matter) doesn't have the RIGHT to do so, but because subsidiary factors such as some of the ones you mentioned cannot be disregarded.

The only thing to bear in mind is that by NOT taking some action more substantive than churning out resolution after resolution in the UN or sanctions that don't affect Hussein himself in the slightest, Hussein has won his gamble, and paved the way for others who would follow in his footsteps to do the same.

Quote:> I personally believe that the best thing to do is hire an assassin or a team of > assassins to take out Hussein

Agreed!

I'm sure if it COULD have been done, it WOULD have been done a long time ago, international law or no Problem is that Saddam is (rightfully) paranoid and has numerous body doubles, never stays in the same place for too long, etc.

As for stoned's original question, what would it take to convince me?

Simply this:

To prove that invading Iraq wil do more to protect the US homeland from terrorism than NOT invading Iraq.

Even if Saddam has WMD, so fucking what? So do Britain, France, Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, probably North Korea as well. The important question is: do they pose an imminent threat to the United States? In addition, enforcing UN sanctions and resolutions is something that the US is not necessarily obliged to do, and something that it certainly doesnt do at all when the violator is Israel, Turkey, or the United States itself.

Terrorists have multiple avenues available to try to obtain WMD. Their two BEST bets by far are neither Iraq nor North Korea, they are Russia and Pakistan. Russia because so much of their biological and chemical weapons are so badly protected and therefore easily stolen (as well as their fissible materials), and Pakistan, which has nuclear technology and also has a great many Islamic fundamentalists in high positions who probably wouldn't have any scruples about passing stuff on to fundamentalist terrorists. By the way, the US has been extremely stingy in terms of helping the Russians get their WMD stocks safe secure. This is extremely, extremely stupid, but I don't expect anything else from Shrub and his cartel. He won't even release federal funds that were earmarked for terror disaster preparedness right here in the US.

Saddam is too interested in his own survival to risk using WMD on US forces or giving them to terrorists to use in the US. There is always a good chance that it can be traced back to him, and if it is, he knows his ass is toast. He could have used them in the first Gulf War: he didn't, obviously because he knew what the consequences would be. If the US goes in to tan his hide, what's to stop him from using them or from giving what he has to terrorists? Answer: zero.

Invading Iraq does NEXT TO ZERO in terms of keeping WMD out of the hands of terrorists. It does a great deal, however, to inflame anti-American sentiment throughout the world, and anti-American rage within the Islamic world in particular. Say hello to tens of thousands of new recruits for the Jihad if the US launches his war.

This Iraq war is not about America's security. If Bush cared as much as he claims to about security, he would be doing more to help the Russians secure their WMDs from theft, he would doing more to keep Pakistan secure, he would be doing more to help the homeland be prepared to react to terrorist attack (he could start by RELEASING THE FUCKING FUNDS THAT CONGRESS APPORTIONED FOR THAT VERY PURPOSE). If you believe his words you are a gullible fool. Look at his actions, instead: they speak volumes.

"But to those who refuse, what would it take to convince you that we must get rid of Saddam?"

Why does this matter? He's going to attack no matter what anybody says - He made that clear in the address last night when he spoke out to France and the other countries who oppose them saying something like "This nation's course will continue regardless." There will be McDonald's in Iraq within 10 years.

--------------------Insert an "I think" mentally in front of eveything I say that seems sketchy, because I certainly don't KNOW much. Also; feel free to yell at me.
In addition: SHPONGLE

Quote: The justification is that Iraq has not fulfilled the terms of the surrender agreement it signed.

I'm sure the signature on that document was coerced out of them, an offer they could'nt refuse. Would a more accurate wording of that be, "the surrender agreement we imposed on them."

What would it take to convince me that war is justified? Well, the discovery of a single WMD might start...maybe an attack by him would continue to convince me.

Even if the guy had anything, the USA surrounding him with armies isn't gonna make him feel much like 'disarming'. Quite the opposite.

Quote:Do you not think there may be other dictators itching to loot their neighbors who are now asking themselves, "Why not give it a shot? What's the worst that can happen? If I lose, I have to put up with those airheads in the UN yammering at me for a few years until they are persuaded to drop the sanctions because the masses I rule -- whom I hold in contempt anyway -- are having a hard time finding enough food. I can handle that."

Well, that depends on the politacal slant of the dictator, right? I mean, the USA supported Pinochet!

The USA is very picky about what dictators it pursues. USA supported the brutal but still right-wing Cuban dictator Batista, but pursued Castro the commie. Who was better for the Cuban people? Castro.

The ones who 'play ball' tend to get their armies topped up by USA, while more independant or socialist dictators often get war from USA. The torture or non-torture of their own citizens has little to do with it. The interests of the american ruling class has everything to do with it.

What would it take to convince you?

-------------------- -I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me

I'm sure the signature on that document was coerced out of them, an offer they could'nt refuse.

Of course he could have refused. He could have continued to fight. And as for "coercion", what was the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq if not "coercion"? Boo hoo hoo, poor Hussein is forced to choose between signing a surrender document with REASONABLE terms (that let him off with not even a slap on the wrist) or continuing to fight a war that HE started!

Good grief, dude, do you actually bother to think through the things you post before you hit the "continue" button?

The USA is very picky about what dictators it pursues.

And the rest of the world is not picky at all about which dictators they pursue -- they pursue NONE.

Who was better for the Cuban people? Castro.

Uh huh. Tell that to the enormous expatriate Cuban community in the US and in other countries surrounding Cuba. Tell that to the Cuban doctors working in clinics equipped with (if they are lucky) a supply of aspirin and a set of scales. I double dog dare you to say that to the Cubans I know living here in the Dominican Republic. That's a conversation I'd pay admission to hear.

What would it take to convince you?

Hussein's full and immediate compliance with ALL the terms of the surrender agreement, followed by his stepping down from the presidency and calling for a democratic election to be overseen by a body of neutral international scrutineers.

I would put it to you that the psychology of all these other countries are different from Saddams. His whole deal is to kill the infadels and the US is the head of the evil beast. He has called for the destruction of the US. He has probable ties with people who would have no problem strapping a nuke to thier chest and walking into downtown N.Y. All the others seem toi have personal political agendas or national defense motives. Saddam would gladly destroy everything to kill Americans.

It is just my opinion but I think his mental state is a large part of this. These other leaders would never give up one of their weapons for any reason. Saddam would give then to anyone who would use it against the US.

Well, to be fair, I'm going to play devil's advocate here and point out that he had these weapons at the end of the first Gulf War and now we don't know where they are. So it is true that he hasn't accounted for all the weapons. Still, I don't believe this is good enough reason for war.